NOAA says world in 2013 was fourth hottest on record (Update 2)

January 21, 2014
by Seth Borenstein

In this Nov. 14, 2013 file photo, Typhoon Haiyan survivors walk through ruins in the village of Maraboth, in the Philippines. Last year was tied for the fourth warmest year on record around the world. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday released its global temperature figures for 2013. The average world temperature was 58.12 degrees (14.52 Celsius) tying with 2003 for the fourth warmest since 1880.(AP Photo/David Guttenfelder)

Last year tied for the fourth hottest year on record around the globe.

The average world temperature was 58.12 degrees (14.52 Celsius) tying with 2003 for the fourth warmest since 1880, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Tuesday.

At the same time, NASA, which calculates records in a different manner, ranked last year as the seventh warmest on record, with an average temperature of 58.3 degrees (14.6 Celsius). The difference is related to how the two agencies calculate temperatures in the Arctic and other remote places and is based on differences that are in the hundredths of a degree, scientists said.

Both agencies said nine of the 10th warmest years on record have happened in the 21st century. The hottest year was 2010, according to NOAA.

The reports were released as a big snowstorm was hitting the U.S. East Coast.

"There are times such as today when we can have snow even in a globally warmed world," said Gavin Schmidt, deputy director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York. "But the long term trends are not going to disappear ... Quite frankly people have a very short memory when it comes to climate and weather."

Those longer trends show the world has seen "fairly dramatic warming" since the 1960s with "a smaller rate of warming over the last decade or so," said Thomas Karl, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. In the past 50 years, the world annual temperature has increased by nearly 1.4 degrees (0.8 degrees Celsius), according to NOAA data.

In this Dec. 25, 2013 file photo, children line up to receive a Christmas gift from volunteers near a giant lantern with the colors of the Philippine flag, in Tacloban, Philippines, a city devastated by the Nov. 8 typhoon Haiyan. Last year was tied for the fourth warmest year on record around the world. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday released its global temperature figures for 2013. The average world temperature was 58.12 degrees (14.52 Celsius) tying with 2003 for the fourth warmest since 1880. (AP Photo/Achmad Ibrahim)

Unlike 2012, much of the worst heat and biggest climate disasters last year were outside the U.S. Parts of central Asia, central Africa and Australia were record warm. Only a few places, including the central U.S., were cooler than normal last year.

Temperatures that were only the 37th warmest for the nation last year. That followed the warmest year on record for the U.S.

Last year, the world had 41 billion-dollar weather disasters, the second highest number behind only 2010, according to insurance firm Aon Benfield, which tracks global disasters. Since 2000, the world has averaged 28 such billion dollar disasters, which are adjusted for inflation.

Nearly half of last year's biggest weather disasters were in Asia and the Pacific region, including Typhoon Haiyan, which killed at least 6,100 people and caused $13 billion in damage to the Philippines and Vietnam. Other costly weather disasters included $22 billion from central European flooding in June, $10 billion in damage from Typhoon Fitow in China and Japan, and a $10 billion drought in much of China, according to the insurance firm.

Usually the weather event called El Nino, a warming of the central Pacific, is responsible for boosting already warm years into the world's hottest years. But in 2013, there was no El Nino.

The fact that a year with no El Nino "was so hot tells me that the climate really is shifting," said Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M University climate scientist, who was not part of either the NOAA or NASA teams.

For many people, global warming first hit the headlines in 1988 when NASA climate scientist James Hansen testified before Congress on a hot summer day. That year ended up the warmest on record at the time. But on Tuesday, it was knocked out of the 20 top hottest years by 2013.

Recommended for you

At the end of the Pleistocene period, approximately 12,800 years ago—give or take a few centuries—a cosmic impact triggered an abrupt cooling episode that earth scientists refer to as the Younger Dryas.

In a new assessment of nine state-of-the-art climate model simulations provided by major international modeling centers, Michael Rawlins at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and colleagues found broad disagreement in ...

New research confirms that the land under the Chesapeake Bay is sinking rapidly and projects that Washington, D.C., could drop by six or more inches in the next century—adding to the problems of sea-level rise.

The world's deserts may be storing some of the climate-changing carbon dioxide emitted by human activities, a new study suggests. Massive aquifers underneath deserts could hold more carbon than all the plants on land, according ...

Wildfires in California's fabled Sierra Nevada mountain range are increasingly burning high-elevation forests, which historically have seldom burned, reports a team of researchers led by the John Muir Institute of the Environment ...

The IPCC AR5 (2013) found no evidence so far that extreme weather events are increasing worldwide. That includes droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, typhoons and other storms.

Experts believe the increasing cost of natural disasters is due to increased urbanization. More people live in areas that are hard hit, so more people and structures are impacted.

It should be pointed out that "fourth hottest on record" is meaningless since other groups (NASA, Hadley CRU, UAH, etc.) don't corroborate that claim and there is no statistically significant warming trend since 1998. The state of global climate science is not mature enough to predict if the current flat trend will continue, decrease, or increase anytime soon. Only computer-generated global climate models predict warming will increase based on their estimation of climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions; however the IPCC AR5 draft noted an increasing disparity between models and observations and suggested the models are too sensitive.

The world is 4.3 trillion years old, we've been keeping records for 134 years. would you rather have a warmer world or a colder? I'll take warmer every time. For all of the 4.3 trillion years Earth's climate has constantly changed. WHY do we think it's our fault? It's no different than natives, seeing a eclipse or a volcano erupt thinking it's their God punishing them. Lunacy.

Donald Trump's toupée says that global warming is a hoax because it was cold one day in NYC! I'm sure Donald's toupée (along with you idiots) know much more about global weather phenomena than most of the scientist on this planet! LMMFAO!!!

Don't you bastards ever get embarrassed by the stupid SH|T that comes out of your mouths?

First, people are pretty sure that at least ~1/3 of the observed warming is due to our actions because we are putting heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, and the direct results are fairly easy to calculate. How much of the remaining 2/3 is due to people is much harder to ascertain, but most climate scientists think that the main indirect effects are positive feedbacks.

Certainly the earth's climate has changed far more - cyanobacteria added ~2000 times as much oxygen as we have added CO2, and that nearly froze the whole oceans as methane was consumed. That killed off most species, so much colder is not better.

But rapid change either way tends to be bad for ecosystems, and humans are changing the climate in hundreds of years rather than millions. So even if warmer was sometimes better for some life forms, RAPID warming would not be good for our current ecosystems, and probably not for people either.

jyro so fully betrays absence of education, is sadly in need of understanding of heat flow, physics, maths & BASIC logic with this mumbling utterance

The world is 4.3 trillion years old, we've been keeping records for 134 years. would you rather have a warmer world or a colder? I'll take warmer every time. For all of the 4.3 trillion years Earth's climate has constantly changed. WHY do we think it's our fault? It's no different than natives..

CRAP, natives had no Science discipline.4.5 Billion years is the current estimate, you are out by a factor of 1000, never mind its technical, obviously not your area.

Warmer NOW, in such short period is extremely worrying. Many people live in coastal regions & much river delta where there are good soils close to sea level. So for habitation & foods sources we may well see millions displaced & tremendous suffering as a result.

It's no different than natives, seeing a eclipse or a volcano erupt thinking it's their God punishing them. Lunacy.

@jyrofunny you should mention thisthere are arguments right here on Phys.org about climate change where the anti-AGW ubavontuba specifically cherry-picks data showing (to her) that global warming has stopped, then made the grandiose claim that it HAD stopped, based upon her data... whereas, if you look at the overall trends for the globe/past 100 years, it is continually rising...talk about sticking their head I the sand!

Also... you should probably do a little more research

Read RealScience and Mike_MassenLearn something about the scienceWarmer does not mean better. (think Sahara)

one last thing- it is also the rapid climb that should worry you, not JUST the overall effects

And what was the error range of the data sources being input into the model making the projections?

None? We are talking about temperatures measured not "projections" mate.We had an historical record here in Holland too with 16C in January, the time it's normally freezing, and it's 20 years since we last celebrated our national skating competition on natural ice, the Elstedentocht (https://en.wikipe...ntocht), any error range for that model?

The world is 4.3 trillion years old, we've been keeping records for 134 years. would you rather have a warmer world or a colder? I'll take warmer every time. For all of the 4.3 trillion years Earth's climate has constantly changed. WHY do we think it's our fault? It's no different than natives, seeing a eclipse or a volcano erupt thinking it's their God punishing them. Lunacy.

By that reasoning why do we not just carry on thinking the world is flat, or made in 6 days, or standing on turtles all the way down. You know, because if it was good enough then, and things are just the same - then surely we have to think no further.If you want to make a comment on here that is both intelligent, and scientifically literate, then please go away and come back after a few years of study of the relevant subjects - not parrot out the usual ideologically matching bollocks. Thank you so much.

With a higher global temp we have greater temp differentials. Just look at North America, and specifically the jet stream location. On top your freezing, below your higher than average. California is turning even more into a desert while all it's moisture is being dumped east of the Rockies. Just like with almost everything else, the greater differential equates to more energy, which we have seen with some of these massive weather events.

If you've ever seen a model displaying the earth during ice age periods, the hot mostly dry areas start to expand and so does the ice from the poles. If you were to overlay the current jetsream location to where glaciers extended during the last ice age they match up pretty well(http://www.intell...m.aspx). This is a natural cycle of the earth, directly linked I believe to the sun's low activity. Having said that, humans have most likely sped up the process.

Maggnus, I think Scroof's implication is that we're observing a human-accelerated natural cycle. This doesn't seem to be consistent with other observations. Namely that there's broad temperature growth globally (especially when we include ocean temperature and not just surface temps), upon which some cyclical variation is imposed (the aforementioned surface temperature variations)

Sped up which process? Are you suggesting that higher global warming will lead to an ice age?

Essentially, yes. The rise in temperature seems to be a natural cycle, humans have just added another variable into the equation. I believe core sample measurements of glaciers show similar rapid greenhouse gas increase preceding an ice age.

Just look at the high air mass that has sat over CA for most of the last 3 years. It's drying out the state and pushes a majority of the moisture up into Canada and then back down again into the states following the jet stream. The colder the air the higher snow totals that accumulate due to lighter fluffy snow. All I'm saying is if this general pattern stays over the course of a couple thousand years I could see where glaciers could start forming again. Just a hypothesis.

@ shaveraThis observation is mostly from the weather patterns I've seen affect North America recently. There are obviously many more factors that influence global weather, and you pointed to a big one in the oceans. They have also become more acidic and radioactive. How will this affect the climate in the future? Scientists are trying to figure that out right now.

That's an interesting premise scroof, and not without traction. There is evidence to support your hypothesis.

However! If we are following the Milankovitch cycle, then we should be at about the end of any warming and heading towards an ice age right now. Even following the patterns of the last few ice ages, the average 12,000 years period of relatively warm climate should be coming to an end. So either way, it seems from the geological record that the Earth should be entering into a cooling period. Yet. we are seeing the opposite.

Similarly, there are arguments and some evidence to support solar-caused warming/cooling effects in our climate. Again, however, considering solar output has actually shown recent decline, it would seem the current warming is un-natural. As shavera and you have noted, the imposition of man-made carbon emissions seems to be the wild card in this deck.

However! If we are following the Milankovitch cycle, then we should be at about the end of any warming and heading towards an ice age right now. Even following the patterns of the last few ice ages, the average 12,000 years period of relatively warm climate should be coming to an end. So either way, it seems from the geological record that the Earth should be entering into a cooling period. Yet. we are seeing the opposite.

Perhaps we are seeing the peak and maybe WILL see a cooling pattern begin. However, will it cool all the way back down to an ice age? Or only halfway back down...I firmly believe there are natural cycles frequencies that have been altered by human activity....

Thanks for adding the Milankovitch cycle to this. I forgot to bring that into the equation. If there is enough cold air from the poles that pushes the warmer air back toward the equator, than regardless of overall temperature you have more surface area covered by cold. So maybe overall temp isn't as important? The global average is a pretty broad measure of the many climate regions on the earth. From what I can tell it seems the hot regions are getting hotter and the cold is getting colder.

You're absolutely right Gyre, on all points. One of the few bbenefits that may arise3 from all of this unnatural warming appears to be that our ancestors (is there are any) will thank us oin 50,000 or so years, as they will likely not have to face an ice age. I saw a paper on it somewhere but I can't put my hands on it; however the premise is that that because the warming will likely extend out for a few millennia due to the long tail effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, the "normal" cycle of cooling will be delayed or possibly even avoided.

Good for them I suppose, but it's the short term problems that are of concern to us.

From what I can tell it seems the hot regions are getting hotter and the cold is getting colder.

From what I have seen, both the hot and cold regions are getting warmer Scroof, the only difference being some parts of Antarctica. Do you have any cites supporting that the colder regions are getting colder? Certainly, I take issue with the comment as it relates to areas in the Northern hemisphere at least, Northern Canada, Siberia and the high Arctic are all showing record warmth,.

Do you have any cites supporting that the colder regions are getting colder?

That was just a general statement stemming from the the record cold much of the US has seen so far this winter(I think the polar vortex set 55 or so the one day). I don't have any cites, just another observation.

….. If there is enough cold air from the poles that pushes the warmer air back toward the equator, than regardless of overall temperature you have more surface area covered by cold. So maybe overall temp isn't as important? The global average is a pretty broad measure of the many climate regions on the earth. From what I can tell it seems the hot regions are getting hotter and the cold is getting colder.

No that's a misconception of the way weather/climate works.The Earth receives a quota of energy from the Sun – the Earth then deals with that as weather as it is transferred back to space. If one region in any one hemisphere gets colder, then a corresponding region will be warmer. This due to the constant heat input and the fact that air does not move easily between hemispheres.Hot regions are getting hotter, yes but cold regions are not getting colder. While the PV was over Canada/US the Arctic, Alaska, E Siberia and Europe were warmer, some exceptionally so.

"From what I can tell it seems the hot regions are getting hotter and the cold is getting colder."

Being that our conscious awareness has been sensitized by constant bombardment of weather reports and the added suggestion of global warming, we tend to take closer notice of climate extremes as they happen. This is not a bad thing, however it has a side effect of making us be more attendant to the "now" vs the overall.While there are extremes, we have to consider the averages of occurrence of those extremes.It's going up over a longer term than the current "going down". But then, that may just be the leading edge of another cycle.

That's because its atmosphere is like a thick blanket, trapping the heat in.

That's only part of it.

Luckily, Earth will never get that bad.

Indeed. But imagine what the earth would be like if one day lasted 243 times longer than it is today and the axis was almost vertical (and upsidedown). Imagine a day in the Sahara around noon (about 2,916.00 hours). I dare say the ground itself would boil. All sorts of noxious gases would rise, life could never have existed...

Venus is inherently a weird place. Earth can never be like that. AGWites need to stop using it to sow fear into the populace.

To use Venus' atmosphere as a means to teach people what a greenhouse effect is perfectly fine. No scientist anywhere has ever said the Earth will become like it. Analogies are used all the time to help illustrate a point.

Venus is inherently a weird place. Earth can never be like that. AGWites need to stop using it to sow fear into the populace

perhaps it is being used as a demonstration to show the POWER of greenhouse gases (which is how I have always understood it) and not so much as a tool to "sow fear"

No, not "continually rising." It stopped rising about 16.5 years ago. Denying this fact is denying the science

if you take a sequential arrangement of temperatures every 30 years then it has risen continuallyeven considering that the last 16 years has been more or less levelyou must also consider that the overall trends have been chaotic, but risingeven in the past, with stagnation or dropping temps in short term trends, the overall trend shows a continual growth, therefore it is true that overall, it is rising

I will not say stagnant/stopped until there is a LONGER trend of stability (30yrs min)ONLY THEN i will capitulate that the rising has stopped

Thanks for adding the Milankovitch cycle to this. I forgot to bring that into the equation. If there is enough cold air from the poles that pushes the warmer air back toward the equator, than regardless of overall temperature you have more surface area covered by cold. So maybe overall temp isn't as important? The global average is a pretty broad measure of the many climate regions on the earth. From what I can tell it seems the hot regions are getting hotter and the cold is getting colder.

I will have to take runrig's side here; you really need to revise your basics of thermodynamic. Entropy will tend to average off the temperature. The main factor that drives climate is the energy we absorb from the sun versus the energy we dissipate to space. The temperature differential is driven by the absorption, dissipation parameters. When a system disfavors energy loss, it can only get warmer.

"In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "(I)f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.'"

"In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "(I)f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.'

And you just go right ahead and use misrepresentation AGAIN! There are some mighty big ifs in that scenario Uba, and if you took the time to read a little bit of Hansen's book you would realize that this is an exaggeration of his work and message. Hansen is certainly at the extreme end, but his theories and warnings are firmly based in science fact. However, I will concede your point; I guess there is a scientist who has said the Earth's atmosphere could become like Venus's in an absolute worst case.

Pure B.S.. What's "deceitful" about simply showing the last 16+ years of data? What is it you're afraid of?

A zombie argument. You don't use the last 16 years of data Uba, you use 1 data set that has been shown to be biased and incomplete, to make claim that this is proof of 16 years of non-warming. THAT is the lie!

You have been shown the facts supporting this statement. Yet you use that same corrupted data set over and over and over in a game of whack-a-mole even after having been shown that the bloody data set is biased and fails to account for all areas of the planet!

And your only argument, ever, against proof that your single data set is not indicative of a 16 year hiatus in global warming is that the scientists at the Met office "fudged their data". AND THAT IS DECEITFUL!!!!

And you just go right ahead and use misrepresentation AGAIN! There are some mighty big ifs in that scenario Uba, and if you took the time to read a little bit of Hansen's book you would realize that this is an exaggeration of his work and message. Hansen is certainly at the extreme end, but his theories and warnings are firmly based in science fact. However, I will concede your point; I guess there is a scientist who has said the Earth's atmosphere could become like Venus's in an absolute worst case.

So first you accuse me of using misrepresentation, then admit I was right? How does that work?

A zombie argument. You don't use the last 16 years of data Uba, you use 1 data set that has been shown to be biased and incomplete, to make claim that this is proof of 16 years of non-warming. THAT is the lie!

So are you accusing the scientists who compile this data of fraud?

You have been shown the facts supporting this statement. Yet you use that same corrupted data set over and over and over in a game of whack-a-mole even after having been shown that the bloody data set is biased and fails to account for all areas of the planet!

Well it certainly was good enough to use for sounding the alarm. So why isn't it good enough now? Why do only the temperatures where we never cared about them before all of a sudden matter?

And your only argument, ever, against proof that your single data set is not indicative of a 16 year hiatus in global warming is that the scientists at the Met office "fudged their data". AND THAT IS DECEITFUL!!!!

Do you think they're actually measuring all those temperature grids at the poles?

Even so, will you at least acknowledge HadCRUT4 shows a 13 year hiatus (actually a slight decline)?

And you just go right ahead and use misrepresentation AGAIN! There are some mighty big ifs in that scenario Uba, and if you took the time to read a little bit of Hansen's book you would realize that this is an exaggeration of his work and message. Hansen is certainly at the extreme end, but his theories and warnings are firmly based in science fact. However, I will concede your point; I guess there is a scientist who has said the Earth's atmosphere could become like Venus's in an absolute worst case.

So first you accuse me of using misrepresentation, then admit I was right? How does that work?

And no, I will not admit that a flawed, cherry picked data set shows anything, except perhaps that you are good at cherry picking. Tell you what; I concede that the your chart, showing your cherry picked data set, slopes downward. Tells us nothing at all about anything. Well, except your willingness to use deceit.

And no, I will not admit that a flawed, cherry picked data set shows anything, except perhaps that you are good at cherry picking. Tell you what; I concede that the your chart, showing your cherry picked data set, slopes downward. Tells us nothing at all about anything. Well, except your willingness to use deceit.

Climate data fraud is likely the cause of the warming. Won't stop the rubes like maggnutts from kneeling at the altar of stupidity.http://www.princi...ent.html

Can'tdrive: Your comment above is interesting. The article you pointed us to is also interesting. Since you did find this article, would you please follow up and point us at any analysis of this discovery? Particularly if they have a peer reviewed paper that they are publishing I would really like to get into the meat of their analysis. They teased us with some animation, but that really doesn't do as well for me as the details of their statistical methods would. Thanks again for pointing it out.

Even so, will you at least acknowledge HadCRUT4 shows a 13 year hiatus (actually a slight decline)?

why must we argue just that single point?You can also cherry-pick several other "so called trends" based upon short time periods in tha past 100 years that show huge DROPS... but taking it with the overall data of the past 100yrs (or even just since 1950) it shows, even WITH the drops and your culled 16 year period, that the overall temps have RISEN.

Therefore your point is irrelevantand it makes me wonder WHY you push so hard for JUST that last 16 yrs...

Entropy will tend to average off the temperature. The main factor that drives climate is the energy we absorb from the sun versus the energy we dissipate to space. The temperature differential is driven by the absorption, dissipation parameters. When a system disfavors energy loss, it can only get warmer.

Well thank you ubavontuba. Throwing me a banana for my above quoted comment is a gesture that denotes your great generosity. It greatly satisfies the Darwinian simian side of my person. It also allows me to praise your almighty wiseness. I should have added to this primitive law of nature that it only allows sir ubavontuba SUVs to work but it cannot possibly apply to climate. I know this because holy Roy Spencer said that God would not allow that; it is a basic law of creation. Spencer is no dummy; he used to work for NASA... they needed a 'savant' for their complicated business. You willingly exposed yourself to ridicule. Remember that for the next time you try to take a bite at me. Because the only result will be to send everybody here laughing at you till tomorrow.

the only result will be to send everybody here laughing at you till tomorrow.

Chip on your shoulder, much?

Entropy will tend to average off the temperature. The main factor that drives climate is the energy we absorb from the sun versus the energy we dissipate to space. The temperature differential is driven by the absorption, dissipation parameters. When a system disfavors energy loss, it can only get warmer.

The earth climate system is too big and complex to model so simply. Although the total kinetic energy of the object (Earth) will increase, the temperature of the surface (climate) can vary significantly, as a result of multiple forcings.

Even so, will you at least acknowledge HadCRUT4 shows a 13 year hiatus (actually a slight decline)?

why must we argue just that single point?

Why are you trying to avoid it?

i have already explained itit appears to be tunnel vision and ignores other similar trends from the pastyou can call me cautious, or whatever

using your criterion of < or = 16 yrs (short periods of time), i could also show where global warming has stopped or reversed itself in the pastbut that would not be the case taken in context todayand it was the same back then... I am sure some would state definitively that it was over, etc

therefore I will NOT make the same statements without longer periods of data collection for purposes of factual statements

this is just rational reasoning in my opinionit is NOT that I will not address your argument, it is that I dont believe you have an argument with such short time spans

More AGWite dishonesty. Clearly this HadCRUT4 period is longer than the period I presented.

And again Uba, your only defense is that the researchers are dishonest. Conspiracy much? Did you even take the time to read the cite?

What is dishonest Uba, is accusing any researcher who provides empirical evidence that your pet theory is wrong, dishonest. It is also dishonest to take data and claim it supports your position, when it clearly does not. Well that's lazy too, but we won't quibble.

A new game of whack-a-mole! Why is the HadCRUT corrections published by the Met unreliable again? What is your working hypothesis on why researchers do climate studies again?

I was stating YOU're dishonest

More "No I'm not, you are!" is laughable Uba. Go ahead and show me where I have been dishonest. I have been insulting and dismissive. That's not dishonest.

Another lie. They clearly support my claim for a hiatus.

Oh, THAT'S your idea of a lie! No Uba, your cherry-picked data set DOES NOT support your claim of a hiatus, and furthermore the very data you have been using has been updated to show there is no hiatus. You understand that using cherry-picked data is a misrepresentation of the evidence right? You further understand that misrepresentation is dishonest right? You get that dishonest misrepresentation is akin to lying right? So what does that make you Uba?

Please elucidate; where have I used a false comparison? Oh, wait, are you talking about how you constantly put up the cherry-picked HadCRUT3 or HadCRUT4 graph and then insist that it somehow supports your contention that there has been a pause in global warming? Ok, well I'm glad you can see that it is dishonest, hopefully you will stop doing it now.

So again, will you at least acknowledge HadCRUT4 shows a 13 year hiatus (actually a slight decline)

I have already conceded that your cherry-picked, inaccurate, incomplete graph shows a slight decline. I have also pointed out that it is a meaningless graph, given it uses a cherry-picked, inaccurate, incomplete data set. Happy now?

You're weird, but I'll bite. What "hypothesis" do you think I've put forth?

This one:

The earth climate system is too big and complex to model so simply. Although the total kinetic energy of the object (Earth) will increase, the temperature of the surface (climate) can vary significantly, as a result of multiple forcings. And you need to establish more energy is absorbed versus released.

A new game of whack-a-mole! Why is the HadCRUT corrections published by the Met unreliable again? What is your working hypothesis on why researchers do climate studies again?

I was stating YOU're dishonest

More "No I'm not, you are!" is laughable Uba.

LOL. You have obviously lost the context again. Are you a chatterbot?

Go ahead and show me where I have been dishonest.

Pretty much everything you post is dishonest.

I have been insulting and dismissive. That's not dishonest.

Yes, it is dishonest. By doing this, you are avoiding the topic.

Oh, THAT'S your idea of a lie! No Uba, your cherry-picked data set DOES NOT support your claim of a hiatus,

It does support my claim of a hiatus, but again, it appears you've lost the context. Try again.

and furthermore the very data you have been using has been updated to show there is no hiatus.

Another lie. Currently the "updated" version shows a 13 year long hiatus (actually slight cooling).

You understand that using cherry-picked data is a misrepresentation of the evidence right? You further understand that misrepresentation is dishonest right? You get that dishonest misrepresentation is akin to lying right? So what does that make you Uba?

As I don't use cherry-picked data, honest, obviously.

But as you do use cherry-picked data, what does that make you (rhetorical)? Obviously, you are dishonest.

You falsely compared a HadCRUT4 period beginning in 1998 with the one I presented beginning in 2001.

Oh, wait, are you talking about how you constantly put up the cherry-picked HadCRUT3 or HadCRUT4 graph and then insist that it somehow supports your contention that there has been a pause in global warming? Ok, well I'm glad you can see that it is dishonest, hopefully you will stop doing it now.

This is dishonest, as both sets show the current hiatus. They just disagree on when it started.

I have already conceded that your cherry-picked, inaccurate, incomplete graph shows a slight decline. I have also pointed out that it is a meaningless graph, given it uses a cherry-picked, inaccurate, incomplete data set. Happy now?

How is it " cherry-picked, inaccurate, and incomplete?" Are you claiming the scientists who compile it are committing fraud?

So by answering my post to Technocreed, is Maggnus admitting TechnoCreed is a sockpuppet?

You're weird, but I'll bite. What "hypothesis" do you think I've put forth?

This one:

The earth climate system is too big and complex to model so simply. Although the total kinetic energy of the object (Earth) will increase, the temperature of the surface (climate) can vary significantly, as a result of multiple forcings. And you need to establish more energy is absorbed versus released.

That's not a "hypothesis." It's a statement of fact.

Will you answer the challenge now?

What challenge?

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.